Don Touhig: My right hon. Friend will know that for the people whom he and I represent—working people in Wales—education has been the key path out of poverty. The commitment of the Government and our colleagues in the Assembly to investing in education, and ensuring that our people have the basic grounding and skills that they need, is making an important contribution to the eradication of poverty in our country.
	Since November 2003, almost 27,000 families in Swansea and more than 350,000 in Wales as a whole have gained from child benefit. The child tax credit introduced in 2003 is benefiting 225,000 families in Wales and 17,000 in-work families in Swansea. Those and a host of other measures are contributing to the reduction of poverty in our society. That is a commitment about which the Government are absolutely serious, and one on which we are delivering.

Tony Blair: Of course it is unacceptable if an operation is cancelled, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman failed to point out that the number of operations that are cancelled is a very small proportion of the overall number of operations. There are millions of people who have operations in the national health service every year and are extremely well treated.
	Let us be quite clear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party are trying to do: they are trying to use any individual case to undermine the basic principles of the national health service. Let me make one thing quite clear: he and his party opposed every penny of the extra investment that can be seen in extra nurses, extra wards and new hospitals, and in the fact that cancer deaths are down by more than 30,000 under this Government and cardiac deaths are down 25,000 a year.
	Yes, there are problems in our national health service—there are in all health care systems—but any reasonable person looking at our health care system today would see exactly where the money is going and why it is so wrong for the Conservatives to oppose that.

Tony Blair: Although I am only going on the letter that I received literally minutes before I got in the Chamber, I thought that the chief executive of the hospital had explained to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it had been given £3 million for extra high-dependency beds next year. I agree that it would be better if that came quicker and if we were able to make faster progress, but I will never agree with introducing charges to the national health service.

Gerry Steinberg: Is the Prime Minister aware that this is a desperate day for Durham, my constituents, perhaps many of his constituents, and also for me, because I could be asking my last Prime Minister's Question on this sad note? Is he aware that LG. Phillips today announced the closure of its Durham factory, which has made cathode tubes for televisions for more than 30 years in my constituency? It was announced this morning that 800 people will be made redundant, even though Phillips knew for the past seven years that cathode televisions were becoming obsolete in favour of flat-screen televisions. Does the Prime Minister agree that Phillips, in acting like an ostrich, has let down its loyal work force by failing to invest in new technology? Will he ensure that everything possible is done to alleviate this absolutely desperate situation and to assist the hundreds of workers who will be made redundant in July?

Andrew George: Answer the question.

Tony Blair: No, I do not support it. Let explain to the right hon. and learned Gentleman why. Let me also try and explain why we have to legislate now. The present law, as he knows, is that people can be detained in prison without trial. There was the House of Lords judgment a short time ago, which effectively said that that was incompatible with human rights and that the legislation should not be in place.
	On 14 March the renewal of that legislation comes up. That is why we must act now. It is not that we are rushing the Bill through without due cause. It is because on 14 March we will be faced with a situation where we have no legislation in place, or we have to put back in place detention without trial, in defiance of the House of Lords judgment.
	There are two sorts of orders that we are introducing. One is a control order, which effectively means that someone could be detained up to 24 hours in their own home. That is what is called a derogating control order, because it means there would be a derogation from our human rights obligations. I point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that that will effectively be subject to a sunset clause, because if we introduce it, and we will introduce it only if there is another vote of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, my understanding is that it becomes annually reviewable and renewable. In other words, that part of the Bill is already subject to a sunset clause.
	Non-derogating orders are measures short of something that requires us to derogate from human rights legislation, such as access to certain people being restricted, or certain areas being restricted, or restrictions on mobile phone or internet use. The police and security services tell us they need these powers in order to be able to deal with the terrorist threat that we face. Those are, as I understand it again, to be subject to an appeal to a court within 14 days. There will also be a three-monthly report on the use of those powers by an eminent and independent person. I think those are sufficient safeguards for the civil liberties of the subject, and I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to reconsider his position on the matter and to allow us to present these proposals in a unified way.

Tessa Jowell: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the future of the BBC. I will set out for the House the background to the current review of the BBC's royal charter and our proposals on its funding, governance and purposes. Those proposals are set out in a Green Paper, "A strong BBC, independent of government", which is published today.
	Alongside the NHS, the BBC is one of the two great institutions of British national life. For more than 80 years, it has sought to represent the highest standards in broadcasting. Its archives are a record of our national collective memory, from broadcasts of the coronation and the 1966 World cup to "Dixon of Dock Green" and "The Office".
	Since the corporation's foundation, its royal charter has been reviewed by the Government roughly every 10 years, the last occasion being in 1996. Like its predecessors, this review examines the corporation's scale and scope, and its funding and governance. It is, however, unique in the level of public consultation, and in tackling perhaps the greatest challenge the BBC has ever faced—the changes in TV technology that will soon result in a wholly digital Britain.
	Like any public institution, the BBC must adapt if is to serve its audiences and keep pace with change, but its values, its global reach, its standards and its editorial independence must be preserved and strengthened, for that is what the British people want.
	The results of our public consultation and research are very clear. Overwhelmingly, people like and trust the BBC: they understand and support the principles of public service broadcasting; they want the BBC to have scale; they want the BBC to set the highest standards; they want the BBC to be independent of Government, Parliament and any commercial influence; and they want the BBC to listen.
	But they also have significant criticisms—for example, that the BBC is not responsive enough to their interests, and that there has been a decline in quality, particularly in television, with a tendency towards copycat programming at the expense of real innovation. Some people worry about the value for money of the licence fee—particularly those who want but cannot get Freeview—and some of the BBC's commercial competitors believe that it has too much freedom to expand into new markets and stifle competition.
	We have to find a balance between meeting those concerns while ensuring that public service broadcasting leaves a footprint in every medium—a guarantee of quality, impartiality and innovation. That balance is harder to strike as the media change. In 1988 Britain had four TV channels; today there are more than 400. In a few years' time, we will become a fully digital nation when the switchover from analogue to digital TV is made. As technology changes, so do the public's expectations. The challenges facing the BBC are enormous, and it plays a leading role in guiding the nation through this period of change. To do so, it needs certainty about its future. Therefore, after closely considering the alternative recommendations of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, we have decided that the BBC's charter should be renewed for a further 10 years.
	I now turn to the question of funding. The review looked at the different options for funding the BBC and consulted the public. Perhaps surprisingly, the licence fee retains a high degree of public support. Although it is not perfect, we believe that it remains the fairest way to fund the BBC, so it will continue throughout the next charter. In the coming months, we will decide on the right level for the fee after 2007, but beyond that we have to take account of the rapid advance in technology and media consumption. During the life of the next charter we will review the case for alternative funding models, particularly subscription, making a contribution after 2016. We will also review the risk to plurality in public service broadcasting, encompassing Channel 4's longer-term position, and whether any public funding, including licence fee income, should be distributed more widely beyond the BBC in order to sustain plurality—and if so, how any such distribution might take place.
	The old definition of the BBC's purposes as to educate, inform and entertain still holds true, but is no longer enough, by itself, in a world of increasing choice. We have therefore identified five new purposes for the BBC, which I set out in the Green Paper. In addition, the BBC will play a leading role in the process of switching Britain from analogue to digital television. It will be at the forefront of public information campaigns; it will help to manage "Switchco", the organisation that will co-ordinate the technical process, and it will help to establish and fund schemes that will help the most vulnerable consumers. Hon. Members will know from their own postbags that there is disquiet in many households that are expected to pay the fee when they cannot at the moment receive the full range of BBC services. That is why we think it important that the BBC should help to drive the switchover process.
	I should now like to move on to governance, where we will introduce radical change—a BBC-specific model of governance that gives expression to the values on which the BBC is built. There is widespread consensus that the current model of governance is unsustainable. The governors' dual role as cheerleader and regulator does not sit easily in a public organisation of the size and complexity of the BBC; it lacks clarity and accountability. In the Green Paper we set out a new model that reflects the public value approach of the current BBC model but also draws significantly on Lord Burns' work. The BBC governors, with their dual role of managing the BBC but also holding it to account, will be replaced by two bodies, each with a clearly defined role.
	A BBC trust will be the custodian of the BBC's purposes, the licence fee and the public interest. An executive board will be accountable to the trust for the delivery of the BBC's services. The functions of the two bodies will be clearly defined, enabling the trust to judge the management's performance clearly and authoritatively. The trust will have high-level powers of approval over BBC budgets and strategy. It will have the tools to hold the BBC to account, issuing new service licences for each BBC service and applying a public value test to proposals for new services. Michael Grade, whose current appointment as chairman of the BBC continues until 2008, will be the first chairman of the trust.
	The trust will represent the licence fee payer. Ways of doing that will be developed further between the Green Paper and the White Paper, but they might include webcasting trust meetings, publishing audience research or electing local representative councils. Day-to-day management will be carried out by the executive board, which will be strengthened by a significant minority of non-executive members, and whose chair will be appointed by the trust.
	In the past months, we have examined closely the changes that Michael Grade has made. We have also studied the model proposed by Lord Burns for an external public service broadcasting commission. Our trust model builds in the strongest elements of the BBC's proposals, which include the establishment of a separate governance unit, the introduction of service licences and the application of public value tests to both new services and any major changes to existing ones.
	The BBC's proposals are undoubtedly a step in the right direction, but as they stand, they fall short of the accountability test because they do not resolve the confusion of the governors' dual role and depend too much on behavioural rather than structural change. The setting up of a BBC trust also incorporates the key recommendation from Lord Burns that there should be clear separation of different responsibilities, to avoid confusion or capture.
	However, we believe that the Burns proposals for a unitary BBC board with a Government-appointed chair, and an external PSB commission also with a Government-appointed chair, would fail to provide sufficient authority, clarity or distance from Government. Our proposal ensures that there will be only one clear sovereign body and only one Government-appointed chair. That will make the trust a powerful advocate for the public interest, able to safeguard the BBC's independence.
	Strong does not mean over-mighty, and we must ensure that the BBC deals fairly with the wider market. The BBC's competitors have become increasingly concerned about the impact of a publicly funded BBC on their services. Successive Governments have allowed the BBC to be, in effect, a desirable market intervention. However, we also need it to be constrained when its interests collide with the commercial sector and threaten the choice and quality of programming from other broadcasters. It should not play copycat or chase ratings for ratings' sake.
	We want the corporation to maximise its income from commercial services, but we also want to see a clear link between those services and its public purposes. To achieve that, the BBC will be subject to tough new internal and external processes. Ofcom will be given powers to conduct market impact assessments for proposed new services. It will retain full Competition Act 1998 powers in relation to the BBC, and, in addition, we will consider giving it a new power of approval over the BBC's internal code on fair trading.
	Another subject of debate is the BBC's use of independent productions and the balance between in-house and externally commissioned programmes. I want to ensure that the licence fee truly becomes venture capital for creativity. Twenty-five per cent. of the BBC's television productions already have to be commissioned from the independent sector.
	I believe that there is scope to go further, and we will consider a range of options for reform in that area, including the BBC's proposal for a new "window of creative competition" and, alternatively, increases in the existing quotas. Either way, I expect substantial progress in that area. The BBC has exclusive access to the licence fee, and in return we want that used to encourage independent production as well as in-house production.
	For radio, the BBC has adopted a voluntary 10 per cent. quota, and we will consult on whether that is sufficient.
	To reflect the whole United Kingdom and its different and diverse communities, the BBC also needs to make sure that a significant slice of production takes place outside London. It needs to provide a specific range of services for the UK's nations and regions. People should see the full diversity of the UK and their local communities reflected in mainstream as well as regional programming.
	I am immensely grateful to Terry Burns and his panel, to Michael Grade and the BBC, and to Ofcom. Most of all, though, I am grateful to the members of the public who, in their thousands, made their voices heard. We have endeavoured to take the best of what they told us.
	In a changing world, values still endure. In a changing world, trust becomes ever more important in people's lives. In our changing world, the Government will secure a BBC that belongs to its licence fee payers and embodies the values that the British people want. That means a BBC that promotes citizenship and builds our civil society; that promotes education and learning; that   is dedicated to creativity and cultural excellence; that celebrates our nations, regions and communities; that brings the world to the UK and the UK to the world; and that is strong, independent and securely at the heart of British broadcasting for 10 more years.
	On that basis, I commend the statement and the Green Paper to the House.

John Whittingdale: I thank the Secretary of State for allowing me sight of her statement in advance. In many areas the direction set out for the BBC is the right one, but in almost every case the statement does not go far enough. Instead, a number of largely cosmetic changes are proposed to the structure and oversight of the BBC. It appears that once again, the BBC has successfully fought off all proposals for substantial or immediate change.
	We welcome the Secretary of State's recognition of the fact that the broadcasting environment is in the middle of a period of extremely rapid change. Every day more households switch to digital, gaining access to tens, if not hundreds, more channels. Many are choosing to pay more for what they want to watch. If the BBC is to continue to receive public subsidy, it must provide programming that is different and in the public interest. It must have even greater regard to its public duty to set the highest standards for the quality of its programmes, its regard for public feeling and its treatment of commercial rivals and suppliers.
	The clear remit for individual BBC services and the stronger public service obligation to which the Secretary of State referred are badly needed, but they will make a difference only if they are rigorously enforced. As we have seen with the independent production quota, the BBC has been happy to pay lip service to the obligations placed upon it until faced with an external regulator with the power to impose real sanctions if it fails to comply. For that reason, almost every independent commentator has recommended the establishment of an external regulator, separate from the BBC.
	The Secretary of State has described the existing arrangement as unsustainable. The chairman of the BBC has already gone some way to distance the governors from the management. Today she has announced that the board of governors is to be replaced by independent trustees, but that is a long way short of the external regulator that we, and others, believe to be necessary. What is the difference between the independent trustees whom the Secretary of State intends to appoint and the new arrangements for a more independent board of governors that are already being put in place by the chairman of the BBC? Is it not the case that the trustees will still be part of the BBC and will not provide the external supervision that would be provided by a public service broadcasting commission fully independent of the BBC, as was recommended to her by Lord Burns?
	The Government have already given Ofcom responsibility for adjudicating on complaints about harm and offence caused by programmes, including those broadcast by the BBC. Why will the Secretary of State not accept that Ofcom should have equal powers to adjudicate on complaints about the BBC's accuracy and impartiality, as it does for other broadcasters? She has referred to the large number of complaints from the commercial sector about abuses by the BBC of its dominant position. She went on to say that she would consider allowing Ofcom to adjudicate on complaints about the BBC's unfair competitive practices. That is a welcome step forward, but why does she need to consider it? Why can she not say today that Ofcom will take over that responsibility, so that we no longer have the existing position whereby the BBC promises to examine such complaints and then, once a decent interval of time has passed, rejects them?
	Why has the Secretary of State again rejected the powerful recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee that the BBC's spending be subject to the full independent scrutiny of the National Audit Office? The BBC receives about £2.8 billion of public money, yet it is still unwilling to open its books fully to the Comptroller and Auditor General, and through him to Parliament. If the Secretary of State really wants to improve the transparency and accountability of the BBC, she should make that change straight away.
	Let me now turn to the funding of the BBC. As the Secretary of State started by saying that she regarded it as improbable, if not inconceivable, that there should be a change to the licence fee, it must have come as something of a shock to her to receive Lord Burns' report, which states that sustaining the licence fee will become increasingly difficult. Her acceptance of that principle is a welcome change, but her agreement to a continuation of the licence fee for another 10 years means that it is essentially business as usual.
	Does the Secretary of State accept that if a move towards subscription were to occur, it would require households to have access to conditional technology? What do the Government intend to do to encourage that? Given the pace at which change is happening, why is she refusing to contemplate any change to the licence fee system until 2017 at the earliest? In the past seven years the licence fee has gone up by 30 per cent. in real terms. Can she at least guarantee that it will not increase in future by more than inflation?
	Why have the Government also rejected for at least 10 years the recommendation of Lord Burns' panel—supported, we understand, by Lord Birt—that licence fee money should be made available to other broadcasters for public service programming? Does she accept the analysis of Ofcom that over time, competitive pressures will continue to reduce the amount of public service broadcasting on commercial channels? If she does accept that analysis, what does she propose to do about it?
	We agree with much of what the Secretary of State has said in her statement, but having identified the priorities and challenges for the BBC, the Government have shied away from addressing them. We share their wish to see a strong BBC producing high-quality public service programmes, but we also believe that the need for change should be addressed now, and that the charter should be looked at again in five years' time. Instead, the Government appear content merely to tinker at the edges of the existing structure while essentially allowing the BBC to continue for another 10 years with business as usual.

Gerald Kaufman: My right hon. Friend has announced proposed changes in the governance of the BBC that take account of the proposals of the Select Committee, and we appreciate that. It is also important to make the point that, after the mess that they inherited, Mr. Michael Grade and Mr. Mark Thompson deserve every encouragement in the new start that they are trying to provide for the BBC.I am sure that when my right hon. Friend produces her further proposals following the Green Paper, she will take into account the fact that her governance proposals need further clarification, and that she will be working on that.
	With the Government, the Select Committee accepted, with whatever reluctance, that the only viable form of funding an independent public service BBC was the licence fee, and we do not quarrel with my right hon. Friend's proposal in that regard. While millions of people will accept, reluctantly or otherwise, that they are paying a licence fee for the BBC to continue, does she accept that they would be less happy with any possibility that the licence fee could be a kitty to be raided for other public service broadcasting organisations? It is very important that that should be taken into account.
	Furthermore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will impress on the BBC the disquiet that is felt in many quarters at the nasty, menacing advertising campaign mounted by the television licensing authority to scare people in a way that is, in my view, incompatible with a democratic society.
	My right hon. Friend has issued a Green Paper, and she will obviously be issuing firmer proposals in due course. She pointed out in her statement the difference between the four channels that we had 10 years ago and the 400 that we have now. Will she take into account in her final proposals the fact that the growth will be almost exponential by the end of 2016?

Tessa Jowell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that contribution, and I pay tribute to his Select Committee's recent report on the BBC, the Government's response to which I have published today. The report was timely because it enabled us to take serious account of it as we drew up the proposals in the Green Paper.
	I entirely accept my right hon. Friend's cautionary note in relation to the public response to any other uses of the licence fee beyond the BBC. That is why I have signalled the intention of the review today, well ahead of time, and why there will obviously have to be extensive consultation and discussion in the light of the circumstances at the time on how such a provision might be applied.
	I am well aware of my right hon. Friend's disquiet about what he has previously described as the "aggressive nature" of the advertising campaign for the collection of the licence fee. In the Green Paper, we have undertaken to review a number of outstanding issues in relation to licence fee collection, which, at the moment, costs about £150 million a year—a substantial amount. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept those reassurances, and I look forward to the Select Committee contributing further to this debate.

Anne Begg: I too congratulate the Secretary of State on the Green Paper, which I look forward to reading in due course.
	I support the continuation of the licence fee. Those who complain about paying it—we have heard some of them this afternoon—tend to take the narrow view that the BBC provides only the two mainstream analogue terrestrial channels, forgetting the raft of radio programmes, including the regional opt-out. When I am in London, I listen to BBC Aberdeen broadcasts on the computer. The BBC provides a wide range of services, and I think that the best way of preserving its uniqueness and its standing in the world is to ensure that it continues to be funded through the licence fee.
	I also wonder—

Alistair Carmichael: If we are not to have a separate trust for BBC Scotland—I do not quibble about that at this stage—it will be important for the geographical and cultural diversity of the station to be reflected not just in the composition of the trust but in its purposes. This is not just about national and regional representation; it is about local provision. In my constituency we have Radio Orkney and Radio Shetland, which are greatly valued by local people because they broadcast not just to local communities, but about our communities to the rest of the country. Can the Secretary of State assure me that high-quality local output will not be lost in a concentration of power among a small number of people?

Win Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As far as I can recall, this is the first time I have ever raised a point of order in the House. I am doing so now not because I shall be retiring before the general election but to record the fact that during Prime Minister's Question Time the Leader of the Opposition—whose office I have informed of this—inadvertently gave a misleading impression of what happened during Monday evening's vote. He said that I, along with 61 other Labour Members, had gone into the Lobby with him. The truth is that I had tabled amendment No. 4 to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, and it was the Leader of the Opposition who went into the Lobby with Labour Members.

Mr. Speaker: The matter is on record, and I will not be drawn into it.

Anne Begg: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the enforcement of entitlements to annual leave under the Working Time Regulations 1998 and to amend the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 in that connection; and for connected purposes.
	The news that the national minimum wage is to be raised to more than £5 an hour in October this year hit all the national headlines last week. Seven years after the introduction of a national minimum wage, most people know about it. The work of the Inland Revenue national minimum wage enforcement agency's compliance officers has been effective. They are able to ensure that an employer is paying the whole work force the correct amount, and not just the worker who made the complaint. They can also visit some employers at random and target sectors and businesses that are notorious for low pay, such as restaurants, whose workers may be unwilling or unlikely to complain.
	However, enforcement officers will often find that failure to pay the minimum wage is not the whole story. The employer who keeps his workers on illegal poverty wages is highly unlikely to be fulfilling the provisions of the working time directive, and in particular the right to four weeks' paid holiday. Yet as things stand, national minimum wage compliance officers are unable to take action against employers who fail to give workers their proper holiday entitlement by, for example, not paying them the full rate or by not giving the full four weeks' holiday. My Bill aims to extend the powers already exercised by the compliance officers in order to allow them to pursue an employer for failure to provide annual leave entitlement.
	There are no definitive figures on the number of workers currently not receiving the paid holiday to which they are legally entitled. However, a 2002 TUC study of labour force survey data found that 400,000 full-time workers were receiving fewer than 12 days' paid leave, which means that even if they were receiving all eight bank holidays as additional paid leave, they were still not getting their statutory entitlement. More recently, a National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux report entitled "Still Wish You Were Here", published in December 2004, stated that tens of thousands of the employment-related inquiries dealt with by their bureaux involve non-compliance with the right to paid holiday. This is likely to be a gross underestimate of the true numbers, because the right to paid holiday is not as well known or understood as the right to the national minimum wage. Those most likely to be losing out are probably in part-time or temporary work or in low-paid sectors, which are often non-unionised. Many of them will be women.
	A study commissioned by the Department of Trade and Industry in November 2004, entitled "A survey of workers' experiences of the Working Time Regulations", found that 13 per cent. of a sample of workers were not receiving four weeks' paid leave. Only a third of that sample had any awareness of the right to paid holiday, and most of those did not know the actual law.
	Some workers get no paid holiday at all because their employer tells them that they do not qualify, or that they have to have a particular length of service. In Aberdeen, where there are a large number of "temp" agency workers, there is a particular problem in respect of those who are told that they are receiving a slightly higher hourly rate for the hours that they work to cover their paid holiday entitlement. The GMB union, which I thank for raising this issue with me, has found examples of members who are not paid the full rate for their holiday. In one case, restaurant workers received a basic hourly rate that was below the national minimum wage, but which was made up through tips paid via the payroll. When staff were on holiday, they received only the basic hourly rate. In a furniture factory in Grantham, piece-workers queried their holiday pay because it was lower than what they earned in a normal week, and therefore fell below the national minimum wage.
	In both cases, the workers raised the issue as a problem with the minimum wage, but when they were told that national minimum wage compliance officers could not take action on their holiday entitlement, they were upset, to say the least. They were told they had to go to an employment tribunal, which is a more complicated process and requires a worker first to raise the issue through the statutory grievance procedure. That is just too intimidating for a vulnerable worker to undertake—that is, if they still have a job at the end of it all. This procedure is not used for minimum wage violations, simply because it would leave an individual worker exposed to victimisation. If it is not appropriate for minimum wage violations, it is not appropriate for violations of paid holiday entitlement.
	That is why I believe that the compliance officers who are already working on the national minimum wage should be given the same powers to enforce holiday entitlement. The powers have already proved effective in seeking out and ending poverty pay, so it is sensible to use them to ensure that workers receive their holiday pay entitlement. Compliance officers themselves say that holiday pay fits in well with national minimum wage work, given that to calculate a worker's hourly rate they have to understand how much money paid to the worker represents wages and what counts as holiday pay. If the normal weekly wage is illegally low, the holiday pay will fall short by the same amount. When arrears are due because of underpayment of the national minimum wage, there will inevitably be arrears of holiday pay, too. The simple solution is to extend the powers that national minimum wage compliance officers already have to cover infringements of paid holiday entitlement. That is precisely what my Bill will do.
	I also want to highlight a particular problem faced by many of my constituents who work offshore in the oil and gas industry who are not, at present, getting their four weeks' holiday entitlement. Despite the incorporation of the EU working time directive for the offshore industry into UK law through the Working Time (Amendment) Regulations, passed by the House on 22 October 2003, many of my constituents are still not getting their full holiday entitlement.
	I realise how important the oil and gas industry is to the economic prosperity of my constituency and how much employment it provides. However, I remain puzzled at the intransigence of operators and contractors in refusing to give their offshore employees the same paid holiday entitlement that is enjoyed by their onshore colleagues. I find it particularly perverse that their lawyers are now arguing in an industrial tribunal that the horizontal amending directive—HAD, as it is more commonly known—which extends the working time directive to the offshore oil and gas exploitation sector, does not apply offshore! I need to repeat that, in case it has not been understood. Despite the fact that the regulations define "offshore work" as
	"work performed mainly on or from offshore installations, including drilling rigs",
	the industry is now arguing that the regulations do not apply offshore. I believe that that does no one any good. Indeed, it risks bringing the oil and gas industry into disrepute—in other respects, I am a great supporter of the industry—as the only industry that does not provide a section of its work force with the right to four weeks' paid holiday. That is a disgrace.
	This week, the Aberdeen and Grampian chamber of commerce published a report on the skills shortage in the oil and gas industry in the North sea and expressed concern that not enough young people were being attracted into the industry. School leavers who are looking for jobs with not only good prospects but good terms and conditions are unlikely to be impressed by the failure to give offshore workers their full holiday entitlement. This unnecessary battle through the courts sends out a totally wrong message to potential young workers.
	I appeal to the Minister for Employment Relations, Consumers and Postal Services—I am pleased to see him in his place—to adopt Order in Council procedure sooner rather than later to enforce compliance with the working time directive, particularly if the industry continues to drag its heels. Of course, if my Bill is passed, the power would rest with the national minimum wage compliance officers to force even the employers in the oil and gas industry to provide full holiday entitlement to offshore workers and not leave people bogged down in an industrial tribunal.
	I do not have to tell the House how important holidays are to us all. They help to improve our physical and mental well-being, and paid holiday entitlement means that such holidays can be taken without financial worries. This is a simple Bill, with the potential to improve the lives of thousands of people. I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Miss Anne Begg, Mr. Frank Doran, Ann Keen, Jim Knight, Ms Dari Taylor, Mr. John Grogan, Kali Mountford, Rob Marris, Lady Hermon, Iain Wright, Mrs. Anne Campbell and Mr. Malcolm Savidge.

Caroline Spelman: I beg to move,
	That this House notes that council tax bills have increased by 70 per cent. under the Labour Government, with further above-inflation rises planned in the forthcoming year and after the general election; expresses concern that pensioners have been hit hardest and calls on the Government to implement the Conservative policy of an automatic council tax discount for those aged 65 and over; notes with alarm the Government's plans in any third term for a revaluation which would lead to greater inequities and new higher council tax bands; rejects Liberal Democrat plans for a local income tax, regional income tax and higher national income tax; and calls for less bureaucracy and interference from Whitehall and regional bureaucrats in local government funding and for greater transparency in the allocation of local funding for councils.
	I seem to be making a habit of standing before the Chamber to talk about a crisis. Last time, it was the crisis in housing and this time it is the crisis in local government funding. It seems to me that we have a Government who are prone to crisis. Where the housing crisis particularly hurts the young, the council tax crisis particularly hurts the elderly—it cannot be said that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister discriminates on grounds of age. People who have worked hard all their lives and saved for their retirement should live in dignity and security in old age, but today, many of them, particularly those on fixed incomes, find it difficult to make ends meet because of the burden of taxation, which the Government have increased by stealth.
	The council tax has proved to be the ultimate stealth tax under this Government, as council tax payers have seen their bills soar by 76 per cent. since 1997. That means that more than a third of the increase in the state pension has been swallowed up by council tax hikes.

Clive Betts: Does not the hon. Lady accept that overall local government has done very well from this Government? It has had a 33 per cent. increase in real terms in grant since 1997, compared with a 7 per cent. cut over the previous four years. Of the so-called burdens that have been inflicted on local authorities, which she has just read out, can she tell us which burdens her party will commit itself to removing, should it by some mischance happen to win the general election?

Andrew Bennett: While we are on the question of equity, I should perhaps thank the hon. Lady for her proposal to reduce my council tax bill by £500 a year. Is that really sensible, however, given that people on very small pensions will get no benefit at all? Is not it logical to provide help for all council tax payers, rather than just to the better-off?

Caroline Spelman: The Minister is very knowledgeable about local government finance and he knows the answer to his own question. It is because Cambridgeshire is an education authority. The unitary authorities have fared better under his grant system and the district councils have fared poorly.
	It is small wonder that Runnymede council, which was rated "excellent" by the Government's watchdog, has had to double its council tax since 1997 to make up for its 20 per cent. decrease in real terms grant. One council leader rang me up this week saying that he will have to risk capping with a 5.9 per cent. increase, because he is just not prepared to cut services. As a unitary authority, his council received a poor settlement of a 4.4 per cent. increase, compared to an average of 6.1 per cent. for comparable authorities. It just goes to show how unfair the system is.
	Eight years ago, the Government started with a policy of deliberately forcing up council tax in what they perceived as affluent areas, then they panicked and capped, and they are now forcing service cuts on the same areas. Would the Minister like to tell me which services he wants councils such as Southend to cut?
	We could spend a great deal longer than a single Opposition day discussing the smoke and mirrors deployed by this Administration in local government finance, but the fact is that the people to whom we are accountable—the tax-paying public—know that since 1997 council tax has gone through the roof.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will know that his per capita figures are not given on a like-for-like basis. It is terribly easy to compare unlike with unlike, which creates a distorted picture. On a like-for-like basis, Runnymede council—I am speaking about comparable services because, as he knows, they can change from year to year—has once again received an inflation-matching increase in grant this year. It is one of the most affluent authorities in the country, with one of the largest council tax bases. If all other variables are removed, the single factor that links the councils that I mentioned is the fact that they are all Conservative-led or Conservative-controlled. Those abnormally high council tax increases are not the product of reduced government grant—every council in the country received an increase in grant, on a like-for-like basis, at least equivalent to inflation, and that never happened under Conservative Governments.Nor is it the case, as some Conservatives have dishonestly sought to claim, that all the grant has been shifted "up north". Many of my hon. Friends might wish that that were the case, but as the figures show, the southern regions have done just as well from the 2005–06 settlement as the northern ones.

Caroline Spelman: In my opening speech, I made clear our position on revaluation. Of course we understand that a property-based tax has to take account of changes in the value of property, but the revaluation exercise does not have to be a stealth exercise to garner more money for the coffers of the Chancellor or for a massive redistribution to further compound the problems of inequity that arise from the present system.

Edward Davey: We are coming up to a general election. The Minister suggests that he can give the British electorate no indication how revaluation will work. Will he admit for the record that, however it is done, revaluation will mean that millions of households will lose and receive higher council tax bills? That is the lesson not just from Wales, but from all past property tax revaluations.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way because I want to make a serious point. Does he not concede that all councils have cost pressures on their budgets because of the increases imposed by this Government in terms of national insurance and pension contributions, waste obligations, increases in the landfill levy, the redistribution of capital receipts and the abolition of the local authority housing grant, which of course increase their need for a council tax increase?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has simply read out a list that was read out earlier, and some of those apply to some councils, but not all to all councils. All of them have been taken into account, and, as he will know, local government has received a 33 per cent. real-terms increase in grant under the Government, whereas when the Conservative party was in power, local government faced cuts year on year on year. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who is again commenting from a sedentary position, would do well to remember that, when his party was in power, it cut local authority spending. It did not increase it.
	As the shadow Chancellor has made absolutely clear, the Conservative party is committed to £35 billion of public expenditure cuts. If it was ever elected, those cuts would cause immense damage to local government, which would bear the brunt, as it did when the Conservatives were last in power. The issue is so important that I intend to spend a little time on it. The Tories' commitment to slash £35 billion will have a massive impact on public services and a massive impact on pensioners. It is patently obvious that the Conservative party cannot make cuts of that magnitude and at the same time fund the spending pledges and tax cuts that it has promised.
	Let us take the example of pensioners, as the hon. Member for Meriden made much play of pensioners in her opening remarks. The pensioners of this country will not forget what the Tories did to them during 18 long years, when the Leader of the Opposition introduced the poll tax and the Tories put VAT on fuel, for example. If any group of people in our society know about the value and importance of money and of living within one's means, it is our pensioners. They know that the Tories cannot spend money that they do not have.

Nick Raynsford: If the hon. Lady will contain herself, I will give way in a moment.
	The Conservative party does not include in its spending proposals any costs for the alternative that it intends to put in place. To the best of my knowledge, it has not even begun the consultation promised by the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps the hon. Lady when I give way to her will tell us when this consultation is due to begin.

Nick Raynsford: I shall do no more than quote the Municipal Journal, which states:
	"There must be an awful lot of civil servants sitting around drinking tea, judging by the Conservatives' latest expensive pledge on public spending".
	The series of estimates is not credible.
	The £1 billion figure quoted by the Conservative party comes from a Joseph Rowntree Foundation report in September 2001, which the Conservative party claims estimates the annual direct costs of inspection at £600 million per annum. It then adds to that figure an estimate of £400 million that the Local Government Information Unit came up with for compliance costs.
	The Conservative party is wrong. The Office of Public Services Reform estimates that the total cost of all inspectorates is around £600 million, but as hon. Members know, many inspectorates—for example, the Healthcare Commission and four out of five criminal justice inspectorates—do not inspect local authorities. Even for those inspectorates that do inspect local government, local government inspection makes up only a small proportion of their overall costs. For example, the bulk of Ofsted's costs relate to school inspections, not local authorities. My Department's initial and provisional estimates of the total cost of local government inspection in 2004–05 is just more than £90 million.
	Even if one were to accept the indirect costs of inspection given by the LGIU—I have yet to see proper evidence supporting those figures—the Opposition's sums do not add up. Are they proposing that we should abolish all inspections? Are they proposing that we should abolish Ofsted or the Commission for Social Care Inspection, and, if we were to do so, what would be the implications for school standards or child protection? Even those cuts do not bring them anywhere near their £1 billion "pie in the sky" saving. Their figures have no credibility—not a shred—and that example is just one of many. Their "pie in the sky" discount for pensioners for council tax bills has no credibility. They simply do not have the means to deliver their promise, which is a cruel deception.
	The Tory cuts would force local authorities to hike council tax massively. As the Tories oppose capping, they would presumably allow council tax to rise unchecked year on year. If there were another Tory Government, pensioners would face cuts in services and uncontrolled increases in council tax.
	Unlike the Conservative party, this Labour Government care about pensioners and have been working hard to raise pensioners' living standards. This Labour Government reduced VAT on fuel to help pensioners and gave free TV licences to the over-75s. This Labour Government introduced £200 winter fuel payments to all households containing someone aged 60 or over, with an extra £100 for those aged 80 or over. This Labour Government added the £100 payment for households with a member over the age of 70 to help meet council tax costs. This Labour Government introduced the minimum income guarantee for pensioners and the pension credit to give extra help to those with savings and modest occupational pensions.
	The effect of Labour's reforms has been to increase the average income for pensioners by £1,350 a year, and to increase the income of the poorest pensioners by £1,750 a year. Do those hon. Members who criticise the Government on means-testing seriously think that it was wrong to give that extra help to the poorest pensioners? The Conservatives opposed all those achievements and they threaten all those benefits. Their hollow rhetoric and dishonest promises will not convince pensioners, who know more than anyone else that money does not grow on trees and that one should never promise what one does not have the means to deliver. Pensioners, more than any other section of society, know the importance of prudent economic management and not pretending that one can live beyond one's means. Along with this House, they will reject the Tory party's blandishments with contempt.

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Interestingly, Christine Nelson from the IsItFair campaign has said:
	"The Tories' proposals will do nothing to help the many younger people on low incomes who are already struggling with the effects of previous increases".
	The Conservatives' policy is opportunist and unprincipled, and does not even do what they say it is trying to do. The Conservatives plan to help 5 million pensioners, but the average pensioner couple in that group would be £100 better off under our local income tax plans. We are looking forward to debating this with the Conservatives, because pensioners will much prefer our proposals.

Malcolm Moss: Since this Government came into office, council tax bills have risen by an average of 70 per cent. throughout England and Wales. I trawled through some statistics from my own area and the area around the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope), who will no doubt respond to the debate later. Corby's council tax has increased by 71 per cent. over that period, Kettering's by 72 per cent., Leicester's by 88 per cent., Milton Keynes's by 73 per cent., Peterborough's by 83 per cent., Cambridge's by 77 per cent., Great Yarmouth's by 95 per cent., and Northampton's—close to the Minister's patch again—by 71 per cent. Similar figures apply across the board, across all councils of whatever political persuasion. That is the result of Labour's policy on local government funding.
	In 2004, the average band D council tax bill in England was £1,167, up from £689 back in 1997–98. As we have heard today, further tax hikes are expected after the election, due to the black hole in the Government's funding of local councils, just as happened after the 2001 general election. Calculations suggest that council tax bills will top £2,000 by the end of a Labour third term.
	Much was made of the additional money from the Chancellor, announced in his pre-Budget report, of £1 billion this year to help to keep council tax as low as possible—obviously with the election in mind—but we now discover that £350 million of that is money announced last year and £350 million is ring-fenced money, which will not be distributed evenly across councils throughout the country. That leaves new money of about £250 million for distribution.
	Under this Government, pensioners have lost over a third of their pension increase in higher council tax. For typical single pensioners, 40 per cent. of their basic state pension increase has been snatched back in higher council tax, with pensioner couples losing a third of the rise in soaring council taxes.
	To take another measurement of Government policy on council tax receipts, the increase in such receipts under this Government is about £9 billion—from £11 billion in 1997–98 to £19.7 billion last year. So, there has been a hike in council tax receipts of almost 80 per cent., which is equivalent to about 3 per cent. on the basic rate of income tax. One problem with this Government is that they claim each year that they are giving additional increases and above-inflation increases—we heard that from the Minister himself today—but they do not convey to the House the fact that a lot of the money in terms of the global increase is specific grant money, which is ring-fenced. The figure some years ago was 15 per cent., but the Minister recently announced that it is to drop to, I think, 13 or 13.5 per cent.

Malcolm Moss: No. I have been told that I have to finish fairly soon to let other hon. Members speak.
	I want to refer to my constituency, North-East Cambridgeshire, and to Fenland district council, which occupies most of that territory and which was capped last year in a way that I consider spiteful, unnecessary and unwarranted. The facts of the matter are that last year Fenland district council had £420,000 withheld or clawed back under the floors and ceilings policy, while this year the amount is £360,000, which went to help those on the so-called floor.
	The formula uses sparsity factors, deprivation indices and other factors to determine the grant requirement. In effect, therefore, the Government are on the one hand saying that my council area requires a certain amount to deliver services in a rural area with deprivation and sparsity problems but, on the other, taking back a considerable amount of that money. They then have the audacity to say, "We said you needed the money. We haven't given it to you, but you are increasing your council tax above a rate that we deem necessary. Therefore, we are going to cap you."
	The bill paid in Fenland is, on average, the lowest in Cambridgeshire, £83 lower per dwelling than the county average, more than £60 lower than the English average and more than £130 lower than the shire district average. So, under no count can one conclude that the council tax payers of Fenland pay more than those in many other equivalent banded properties in adjoining constituencies, or for that matter in shire districts throughout the country.

Clive Betts: I am afraid that I will have to decline as I am on a strict time limit. I want to make progress so that I can allow others who have been present throughout the debate to get in.
	The worst criticism that I can offer of the Conservatives' proposals is that they are worthy of the Liberal Democrats' unfunded and uncosted proposals at their worst. During his response, my right hon. Friend made a point that I particularly welcomed. There was some concern in local government circles that the £1 billion would be a one-off sum and that next year, local government would be left to deal with the mess. I am pleased that he dealt with that issue, and local government will be somewhat reassured by what he had to say.
	I have two final points to make about the Opposition's proposals. The Liberal Democrats say that they have done the research and the costings and that local income tax will achieve various things. However, during his speech the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) gave away something that also emerged when the Liberal Democrat leader of Somerset county council appeared before our Select Committee. The hon. Gentleman said that any form of taxation needs its own form of grant distribution. When challenged, the leader of Somerset council had to admit that, on a like-for-like basis and without any change to the grant regime, local income tax in Somerset would not be affordable for many families. She said that the council would need a substantial increase in grant.
	Frankly, if the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton has not calculated how he would distribute grant, he cannot say precisely how much people would have to pay in local income tax, compared with council tax. [Interruption.] He is mouthing silently that the Liberal Democrats have made those calculations, but I certainly have not seen them on his website. It will be interesting to see them in due course.
	The hon. Member for Meriden put a great deal of emphasis on the fact that she opposes means-testing, but let us consider the Conservatives' proposed council tax discount for pensioners, according to my understanding of it. Those pensioners who currently pay no council tax because they get a full discount would get no discount from her. Those whose council tax is partly covered by council tax benefit would get only part of her discount. However, those who would get the full discount include some of the richest, who live in some of the largest houses.

Nigel Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution to the debate. I agree with only one thing that the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) said—we should keep our contributions short in order to allow other Back Benchers to speak. I have to say that the Minister for Local and Regional Government spoke for 43 minutes, but he said absolutely nothing and made no contribution of value to the debate.
	Speaking as a former county councillor, I pay tribute to the many councillors up and down the country who do tremendous work under great pressure, frankly, as a result of the extra demands put on them. My patch includes the Lancashire county council, which is Labour controlled and Ribble Valley, which is Conservative controlled. Of course, the people of Ribble Valley will not have to wait very long—we know the date at least of the county council elections—before they have a Conservative-controlled Lancashire county council that will be able to deliver effective policies on a much lower council tax than they currently pay.
	One matter on which we can all agree, irrespective of whether we have had experience on a council, is that the vast majority of people in this country simply do not understand local government finance. It is incredibly complex, yet so much of what the Government say these days depends on it. The Government are trying to use smoke and mirrors in order to confuse people, but funnily enough, one thing that does not confuse people is the demand that they receive through the letterbox. When they open up the letter, they see how much council tax they have to pay. On that matter, there is no confusion.
	For a band E property in Ribble Valley in 1997, people had to pay £746; today, they have to pay £1,206. There is no confusion there at all—[Interruption.] The Minister knows perfectly well that biggest costs that people living in Ribble Valley will have to face will come from the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council. We hear a lot about the wonderful settlement that councils have had this year, but does not the Minister find it significant that, if we look back to the previous occasion on which a general election and county council elections were held virtually together, the council tax increase was pretty small, too? Subsequently, of course, council tax went up to a much higher level, but, lo and behold, what are we being told now? We hear that the deal this year is wonderful and that all the increases should be kept to a minimum. We are encouraged to rejoice that the increases in the Ribble Valley may be only twice the rate of inflation. This is, as everyone knows, a general election year. People in the Ribble Valley are pretty canny. They know that if a Labour Government are returned after the next general election, the increases in council tax will rise dramatically, just as they have done—by 70 per cent.—since the Government came to power in 1997.
	I want to concentrate mainly on pensioners, but they are not the only ones to suffer. First-time buyers are also being clobbered one way or another. They are getting clobbered now because they have to pay stamp duty, which has not kept pace with inflation. Many people buying their first homes are truly being clobbered by it—[Interruption.] Before the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) even tries to intervene, I do not agree with any of the Liberal Democrat policies. As I say, people are clobbered at one level, and then the council tax comes in on top, and they are clobbered again.
	What the Government are attempting to do with their revaluations and rebanding is to introduce a very crude wealth tax. The Government should be far more intelligent about that.
	Part of the problem is that councils face so many extra demands. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) listed the various extra demands that have been put on councils, and my local council complains most about the pensions claw back. That has had a huge impact on Ribble Valley council, as expressed at a meeting last night about employee pension funds. The council has to find £120,000 for that next year. The year after it will be £190,000 and the year after that £260,000. Those sums will have a huge impact on the level of the council tax in the Ribble Valley. I pay tribute to Councillor Richard Sherras, who proposed the motion last night to bring the issue to the Government's attention. It is not only Ribble Valley that will suffer, because all councils will have to find similar extra sums.
	Pensioners are a vulnerable group of people because many of them have to exist on fixed incomes. That is incredibly difficult, because they have to try to budget on the money that they know is coming in. However, from year to year, they do not have the faintest idea of the full impact of the council tax.
	The Ribble Valley has seen a vast increase in the number of people aged over 65. In 1991, there were 15,578 and in 2001—the latest year for which figures are available—there were 18,801. As those people get older, they rely increasingly on the services that the county and borough councils provide for them. Some of the care homes in Lancashire have been closed recently and the care packages for elderly people have been reduced, at a time when demand has increased. Older people find that very worrying.
	Some of my constituents have lived in the Ribble Valley for many years, they have brought up a family of three or four children, they have moved house two or three times and they now live in a big house. Although the children may have moved away, leaving one or two pensioners living there, that house holds the memories of their family, and it is appalling that they may be forced to sell that family home simply because the council tax has gone up 70 per cent. since 1997. Who can say how much further it will increase? If the Government win the election, such a property may even be rebanded.

Simon Burns: Does my hon. Friend remember that pensioners in the Ribble Valley had a significant increase in their council tax in 2002, because of the Government's poor funding of Lancashire county council, yet pensioners received only a 75p per week increase in pension?

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) for drawing attention to any distress on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). I assure him that I see no distress on her face. Her clear exposition of our party's position was given with the authority and assurance that she will carry into her new position of local government Minister in due course.
	The debate is much concerned with figures, but the council tax represents more than that. We can use the debate to illustrate the way the Government go about their business more widely. They ride two waves with the British people, the first of which is disillusionment. There is a sense that they have squandered the good will with which they came to office. Those in professional and public service circles have a sense of their overbearing centralism, which prevents good professional officers from exercising their discretion and doing their work. The second wave that the Government ride is one of cynicism, which is born of the fact that the public do not trust them any more because there is sufficient evidence of their dishonesty. The council tax draws those two waves together.
	Let me give examples from the three authorities that I share the honour of representing. Bedfordshire county council has been given an extra £14.9 million, which no doubt the Minister for Local and Regional Government will trumpet. Some £11.6 million of that will be automatically passported to education, which leaves £3 million to deal with new legislative issues and unavoidable growth. Some £2.5 million is required for additional social services assistance, and there are demographic pressures in the area.
	An item called "Supporting People" used to be 100 per cent. funded by Government, but is now only partly funded, leaving a shortfall. Where will the extra money come from? The council must now pick up the costs for preserved rights and residential allowances, as no extra funding is available. Bedfordshire county council therefore needs to spend more of its own money, as costs are not accounted for by the Government, yet the Government trumpet their good will towards local government.
	Mid Bedfordshire district council was mentioned earlier. The guns of Whitehall are trained on it, because it proposes to make a 13.3 per cent. increase, which, as I told the Minister, equates to £1 a month. It is the 10th lowest rated district council of 238, yet the full might of Whitehall will be brought to bear on it for its unjustifiable activities in protecting its citizens. In a letter to the Minister dated 28 February, the leader of the council, Patricia Turner, raised the issue of what happens in growth areas. Mid-Bedfordshire is such an area, as the Government want to build many more houses there. Mrs. Turner said that
	"this Council is in a designated growth area under the Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub Regional Strategy and we have experienced a tax base growth of 4.7 per cent. in 3 years, equal to 2190 properties. This growth is expected to continue. The calculation for grant distribution, however, applies a band D equivalent of about £180 for each new property to be set against the Formula Spending Share."
	The band D charge for mid-Bedfordshire, however, is £90, so Mrs. Turners says that
	"the council effectively loses around £90 with every new property added when its FSS is reviewed."
	There are clearly pressures on Mid Bedfordshire council, yet it will fall foul of Government capping rules.
	There has been a 72 per cent. increase—eight times the rate of inflation—in council tax in mid-Bedfordshire since 1997. At Bedford borough council, which covers part of my constituency, the increase has been 66 per cent. or seven times the rate of inflation over seven years. It calculates that even on the Government's own needs assessment, a further £237,000 should have been made available. It is concerned about issues such as the implementation of the Licensing Act 2003, as that is not fully funded and will add 1 per cent. to the costs of the council tax. It is worried about increased pressures for recycling—a good thing—that will add an estimated 7.7 per cent. to council tax costs. The council must bear those additional costs.
	The meanest cut for Bedford borough council is the loss of the disabled facilities grant. The Minister looks doubtful, but after our debate, I shall give him a copy of a letter from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to the council dated 28 February 2005. It says:
	"For 2005/06 the share available for authorities in the East of England is £9,778,000, which represents a 2 per cent. reduction compared with the amount available for 2004/05."
	The disabled in Bedfordshire borough will receive less as a result of the Government's actions. The former director of the SHAC housing association is giving all his attention to Mid Bedfordshire district council, which is going to charge people an extra £1 a month, yet he shows little interest in whether or not the disabled people of Bedford borough face a reduction in the disabled facilities grant.
	As I said earlier, the Government are riding two waves—disillusion and cynicism. We cannot trust everything that they say. I have given the example of three different councils that are trying to do their best under the Government. The statistics will be used to claim that they are receiving more money every week and, indeed, every day from the Government, but their own experience of rising costs affects what they can do with the money. Councillors and people who work in local government know that the figures are fiddled. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said, when the bill comes through the letter box people can see that they have been charged extra and that council tax has increased at a rate many times that of inflation since 1997. The Minister says that the Government are giving councils more money, and that the problem is with the councils. However, it is an insult to electors' intelligence to be told that this year's settlement does not have anything to do with the general election. Until Ministers stop treating the electorate with contempt the twin waves of disillusion and cynicism will go all the way to the Government's grave—a moment that cannot come too soon.

David Borrow: Local government finance is, in some ways, straightforward. Local authorities have three sources of money. They get it from central Government in grant, the business rates and the domestic property tax. Those are the three sources that have existed in my adult lifetime. Until 1990, the level of the business rate and the domestic property tax were subject to decision by local authorities. Since 1990, the business rate has been decided by central Government and its rate has been fixed to inflation. The only flexibility that local authorities have is in the council tax.
	Today's debate has ignored the fact that we will not have stable, long-term local government finance until we give local authorities control over a bigger proportion of their revenue. The Tory proposal has a lot to commend it in terms of what it does for middle-income and better-off pensioners, but for local government it shifts the balance in the wrong direction. It means that local government is more dependent on central Government finance than on revenue raised locally. The Lib Dems' solution of a local income tax ignores the gearing effect. Because there will not be the bill on the doorstep that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) mentioned, local authorities will be tempted to increase the proportion of the local income tax and mix it with the national income tax year by year in the hope that the increase will not be noticed.
	I am not necessarily against the concept of a local income tax, but it is only viable if we recognise that to throw away the benefits of a property tax would be stupid. We need to ensure that a property tax is at the core of local government taxation and that should be supplemented with other locally decided revenue raising sources, of which local income tax may be one. Current council tax levels are probably at the maximum that can be supported.
	Once we have the Lyons report, we need to deal with the serious issues of finding a long-term, cross-party solution to local government finance. I realise that we will not get it this afternoon, a few weeks or months away from a general election, but until we look in a grown-up way at giving local government a real opportunity to decide its own level of finance and be accountable to its local people, we will never solve the problem because, each year, the amount of revenue grant that local authorities receive will be decided by the pressures and strains within the Treasury. We must move away from that to give greater flexibility, power and freedom to local authorities. The Lyons report will be key to that, and it is about time that we discussed the matter in a more grown-up way.

Phil Hope: Let us cut straight to the main question, shall we? The key political question of the afternoon is the credibility of the Tories and their so-called council tax discount for pensioners. That is what this debate has been all about. The policy has been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) as giving more discounts to those who need them least. That is a good summary of the Tories' proposals.
	Does the Tories' electoral bribe stand up or is it, as this debate has shown, unravelling? We witnessed the unedifying spectacle of Conservative MPs defending Tory councils that are going to increase their taxes by 13 per cent., 17 per cent., 23 per cent. and 100 per cent. That news will go back to the electorate in those constituencies, so that they know what those Tory councils and Tory really stand for.
	What is at stake is the credibility of the Tories' overall strategy for public spending. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) said, they admit that by 2011–12 they will impose spending cuts of £35 billion per year, as compared with projections based on Labour's spending plans. The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the shadow Chancellor, said in November that those spending plans
	"provide the ability over a six year period for us to be spending about £35bn less per year, in the sixth year, than Gordon Brown's plan provide for."
	Leaving aside council tax for a moment, we see that the choice is clear: investment with Labour or cuts under the Tories. It was ever thus.
	Then the Tories' con trick comes into play. They are going to give some of the money back to particular groups, such as some pensioners in England, through a so-called discount on their council tax. That is a con trick, typical of the now-you-see-it-now-you-don't politics of Tory tax pledges. In reality, the Tories are once again being economical with the truth and offering fool's gold to the electorate.
	We know that that money will not be found from efficiency savings. The latest edition of the Municipal Journal says that to suggest that the £1 billion cost of the rebate will be met by efficiency savings is pie in the sky. I think that the description given by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) was pie-eyed, as well as pie in the sky. We know that those cuts can come only from cuts in front-line services. There is no money for those discounts—it must come from such cuts.
	The Tories say, for example, that they would cut £1 billion by abolishing all local government inspections. I look forward to hearing a few Tory MPs explaining on the doorstep why they are taking away the service that keeps child protection in place or how they are going to cut £1 billion from local housing. I cannot see too many of them going round the housing estates explaining those things when councils receive a massive cut in the grant.

Phil Hope: I am not going to give way, as I have very little time.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) and for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) have done an extraordinarily good job of analysing the Conservatives' spending plans and are clear that councils that receive a massive cut in grant will inevitably increase council tax. The discount will therefore not be a discount at all. Pensioners in areas such as Reading, West and Southampton, Test and across the country will experience a 40 per cent. increase in council tax.
	The Tories proposals are fool's gold. There is no money to give away to pensioners in council discounts. The Tories' £35 billion of cuts means full spread council tax and an increase for council tax for all, not just pensioners.
	It is important that we remember the Tory record on funding for local government. We are not dealing with a here-and-now question. The pensioners whom the Tories are trying, with their fool's gold, to bribe into voting for them remember the Tories all too well. Those pensioners remember the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the Leader of the Opposition, introducing and scrapping the poll tax, and increasing VAT from 15 per cent. to 17.5 per cent., as we have been reminded. Those pensioners remember that in the last four years of their term the previous Tory Government cut funding for local government by 7 per cent. That stands in stark contrast to the 33 per cent. real-terms increase that the Labour Government have given to local councils.
	Even if memories among those pensioners were not very strong, however, they would know about the track record of Tory councils and about the average council tax, which is £200 more under Conservative authorities, as compared with Labour authorities. Labour authorities have lower council tax and better services, as measured by the Audit Commission's comprehensive performance assessment.
	Finally, the Liberal Democrats continue to peddle their slogan, "Axe The Tax", in a desperate attempt to win votes, despite the fact that not a single organisation with real expertise in local government funding supports the idea of replacing council tax with local income tax. What it means is a massive increase in the income tax of every family across the country. That is the Liberal proposal—written on the back of a fag packet, it does not add up and will not be accepted by local people.
	The Tories have been caught out. Their track record on funding and support for local government is shameful. Their proposal on spending means savage cuts, and their promises on council tax discounts are worthless. The choice is clear: continued public investment and low council tax under Labour or cuts in services and massive increases in council tax under the Tories.

David Hinchliffe: I believe that we should be even-handed. If the hon. Gentleman is going to campaign on the issue of MRSA, good luck to him, but is it not reasonable to ask why the motion makes no mention of the last Government's decision in 1983 to introduce competitive tendering, which drove down cleanliness standards in hospitals across the country as well as the wages of decent, hard-working cleaners? Does he not accept that that has a key bearing on the problems we are discussing?

Tim Loughton: That is why I said that my estimate—not my estimate, in fact, but a widely accepted estimate—was conservative. It also relies in part on the way in which hospitals account for hospital-acquired infections. Many hospitals will not necessarily treat infections as hospital-acquired if they manifest themselves a certain amount of time after the patient has left the hospital. Hospitals such as my own—the Worthing and Southlands Hospitals NHS trust, in Sussex—do play by the rules and account for all infections in hospital and, within a certain time, after leaving hospital. Indeed, they do rather well, but other hospitals, because of the management pressures imposed by the Government's targets, do not.

Kali Mountford: The hon. Gentleman mentions the dedicated service of hospital staff. Will he therefore consider the Royal College of Nursing's observation that alcohol-wipes are the best way to deal with the problem, and that ward closures would exacerbate it by spreading disease further?

Tim Loughton: The problem is that nobody knows what to believe and what not to believe. The hon. Gentleman is lucky if he found a matron who says that matrons have the power to close wards, because according to the experience of most of us, they do not, and they are too often overruled by management.
	The plethora of half-baked knee-jerk reactions that the Department of Health often foists on NHS staff has served to increase the pressure on them yet further. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire pointed out in an earlier debate,
	"Doctors and nurses across the country tell me that they know how to deliver infection-free environments and that they have experience of doing that. They know that they can do it if they are given the support and the freedom to deliver the requirements of patient safety without being contradicted by Government targets and bureaucracy. That is what is urgently required now".—[Official Report, 8 September 2004; Vol. 424, c. 792.]
	But they have been bombarded with no fewer than 23 initiatives in the past four years. In February 2000, departmental guidance was issued. In May 2000, the Department adopted and published "Standards of environmental cleanliness". In July 2000 there was the Government's NHS plan, which included a campaign to clean up hospitals. In December 2003, "Winning Ways Together" was published. There has been no lack of paperwork on these subjects, so why, after all those publications and initiatives, is the situation continuing to deteriorate?
	The situation culminated in last week's ONS statistics and the designating of this Monday as "Think clean" day. It would be laughable if it were not so serious. Every day should automatically be a think clean day. It is symptomatic of this Government's tick-box mentality that they think that, simply by having a think clean day, they can in some way sort out the problem.

Tim Loughton: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's constituent, Mrs. White, but I am afraid that hers is not an isolated case. We must do more to restore the confidence of patients in our hospitals. We will do the patients, the staff and the whole system a disservice if we do not restore that confidence.
	I have some specific questions for the Minister. Why will the Government not conduct a search and destroy approach to tackling MRSA and other hospital-acquired infections, as recommended by their chief medical officer in "Winning ways" in December 2003? Such an approach has been dramatically successful in Holland and Denmark and could work in the UK. In the Netherlands, they screen patients and isolate those infected, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) mentioned earlier. Who exactly has the final say over infection control in hospitals? How can the Minister justify a situation, revealed by the National Audit Office report in July 2004, in which 12 per cent. of infection control teams reported that a recommendation to close a ward or hospital to admissions for the purposes of outbreak control was ignored? When will the Government give proper control of infection outbreaks to matrons or other appropriate health professionals, rather than to management ones to carry out the Government's obsession with targets? Where exactly does the buck stop in hospitals? Who is really in charge? Does the Minister not understand—as again the NAO suggested—that because of the pressure to meet Labour's targets, hospitals have poor infection control?
	"The increased throughput of patients to meet performance targets has resulted in considerable pressure towards higher bed occupancy, which is not always consistent with good infection controls and bed-management practices."
	That is a quote from the NAO.

David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman seems to be guilty of trying to make a general case from anecdotal evidence. Does he agree with the comment in a newspaper with which, I am sure, he will be very familiar—the Wiltshire Gazette & Herald—where the writer said that it is easy to cut and paste to give the impression that an institution is generally bad and filthy when it is not? The writer was the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), who is sitting two places from him on the Front Bench.

Tim Loughton: Not at the moment.
	What action are the Government taking to promote the better training of staff? Does the Minister agree with the Royal College of Nursing that further action is needed to make infection control a mandatory part of training for all NHS workers? Is she worried about the situation described by Professor Richard Wise from the Birmingham City trust, who said that the number of infection control nurses was "worryingly low", at one nurse to every 347 beds, and that there should be one nurse to every 200 beds? What progress have the Government made in meeting their target of one infection control nurse to every 250 beds?
	Why will the Government still not publish infection rates for MRSA and other infections per clinical department as we have undertaken to do, given that hospital trusts have had a mandatory duty to report such infections since April 2001? Why should patients not have the right to know the truth? After all, the Secretary of State's opening pledge of his "campaign for action" in "Towards cleaner hospitals and lower rates of infection" was
	"Being open with the public".
	So much for that.
	The Government's policy thus far has often been to deflect criticism on to anyone but them. The problem is apparently all down to the contracting out of cleaning staff that was started by the wicked Tories. Alas, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) has left the Chamber. Ministers surreptitiously trot out the assertion that the blame should be put on contracted-out cleaners, or allow Unison to do the dirty work for them as a pay back for the £7 million of donations that it has given the Labour party since the last election. However, the chief medical officer is on record as saying that there is no link between contracted-out cleaning and MRSA rates. On the "Today" programme on 10 January, the Secretary of State said:
	"There's no proven causal link between contracting out and MRSA".
	Let us stop that debate now.
	Indeed, 11 of the top 20 acute NHS trusts for cleanliness are cleaned by private contractors, while 11 of the bottom 20 are cleaned by in-house teams. Yet again, the picture is confused because the Government's patient environment action team—PEAT—scoring system gives a different impression of the situation, as I said earlier. In any case, surely it would be easier for a hospital to sack a duff cleaning firm that is failing to do its job properly than to sack in-house staff. We intend to give matrons and infection control teams a far greater say about such matters in the future and more powers to deal with the problem.
	We agree that more needs to be done on cleaning. We agree that cleaning needs to be a more fundamental and central part of health spending on hospitals. However, it is entirely disingenuous to try to pin responsibility for the problem on a political decision going back to the 1980s. It is an attempt to deflect the blame from where it should lie.
	The Government use the deflection tactic of saying that the problem is all down to the Conservatives' actions in the 1980s and 1990s, but if hospital-acquired infections were such a burning issue then, why did the then Labour Opposition not raise the matter a single time? There was not one Opposition day debate on hospital-acquired infections between 1992 and 1997. The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) tabled one written parliamentary question on the matter during his time as shadow Secretary of State for Health—on 29 October 1993. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) for asking many more questions and securing a debate on the matter on 19 March 1997. He was surpassed only by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen), who secured two debates in May 1997 and December 1995. Thus two Back Benchers raised the subject in five years, so let us lay the blame where appropriate. For the past eight years, this has been a burning issue under a Government whose own policies have exacerbated the problem. Their attempts to deflect the blame onto the previous Government do not hold water.

Tim Loughton: It would be strange if a measure of an Opposition's effectiveness were how forward the Government were in making information available. If that were the case, we would not be raising this issue time and again. The Government have frequently sought to deflect attention away from the problem, have engaged in subterfuge and have not released the information that we have requested, so the hon. Gentleman makes a weak point. Is he saying that a Conservative Minister had to raise the issue before he would dare to ask questions? What utter nonsense. It is a national scandal that one in 11 hospital patients has a hospital-acquired infection at any time. The Labour Government have let our patients and our NHS down badly. They have confused quantity with quality by introducing a plethora of initiatives and gimmicks. They have deflected the blame so that it lies with anyone but themselves, but it has all been too late.
	We will replace that catalogue of prevarication with an urgent timetable for action. Conservatives will put clinicians back in charge of determining whether or not hospital wards are safe. They will not be subject to the arbitrary targets imposed by a Government obsessed with numbers and throughput rather than quality and the safety of patients. Matron will be put back in charge of our hospital wards. There will be proper nursing matrons—not the Government's management matrons—who know whether or not a bed is clean and recognise the virtues of a good whiff of bleach in the air. There will be no doubt about who is in charge of wards under the next Conservative Government. Matrons will not soft-soap us on cleanliness. I recently spoke to a hospital infections director, who tried to convince me   that dusting under a bed was not a good idea, because it encouraged any infections to become airborne and therefore more dangerous to the patient. Unbelievable—and she was on a six-figure salary.
	Conservatives will not accept the Government's limp target for halving MRSA bloodstream infections by 2008, as the situation is too grave. Indeed, it is grave enough for the Secretary of State to make an appearance in the Chamber. We will institute the sort of ruthless search-and-destroy strategy that brought about drastic improvements in Holland. We will not compromise patient safety with unrealistic targets on bed occupancy levels, as that is a false economy. Hospital-acquired infections cost the NHS £1 billion, result in prolonged stays by patients who have caught infections and have a human cost for the people affected by them. The Conservatives will speed up the diagnosis of MRSA through the faster application of new methods, and will expand screening where appropriate. We will publish infection rates for all hospitals, because we believe that patients have the right to know. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence will be tasked to prepare evidence-based infection control standards, and we will fund hospitals to recruit more infection-control nurses and to install new technology to fight the superbug.
	There is nothing in the motion that Members on all sides of the case cannot support if they genuinely believe in improving the safety of our patients and genuinely believe that hospital-acquired infections are a serious problem. There is nothing inevitable about the superbug crisis. It is time that the Government applied some of their own pledges from their latest rather vacuous pledge card to assess how they have dealt with this problem. "Your family better off"—not when it comes to the risk of MRSA. "Your child achieving more"—not with more children contracting MRSA in our hospitals.
	"Your children with the best start"—
	at the risk of catching MRSA; I do not think so.
	"Your family treated better and faster"
	and "Your community safer"—I do not think so. It is surely is a case of backward, not forward under this Government.
	Last month, the chief medical officer, talking about MRSA, admitted:
	"We've been perhaps a little bit too gentle on health infection in the past and it's now really no more Mr. Nice Guy."
	It is time for Mr. Nasty on the Treasury Bench and his Government to move aside and make way for a party committed to taking this problem seriously, committed to the safety of our patients and our staff, and the safety of our NHS. I commend the motion to the House.

Melanie Johnson: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	'welcomes the Government's commitment to tackle hospital acquired infections with a robust programme for improving standards in infection control; congratulates the Government on its action plan for reducing infection rates, "Towards cleaner hospitals and lower rates of infection", and the introduction of the new target to halve the rate of MRSA in the first instance, and the appointment of local directors of infection prevention and control to cut cross infection locally; supports the Chief Medical Officer's action plan "Winning Ways"; recognises that MRSA is a longstanding problem that became endemic in the National Health Service between 1993 and 1997 and believes that this Government is to be congratulated on introducing a system of mandatory surveillance for MRSA to establish its full extent; notes that the Government is working with experts from home and abroad to identify the actions and best practice which will make a difference, including a matron's charter, a national hand hygiene campaign, improved standards and better inspection of hospital cleanliness; and therefore congratulates the Government on its comprehensive programme of investment and reform that has equipped the NHS to deliver improvements in patient safety, and to reduce hospital acquired infections.'
	I would like to get to some facts about why infections occur, about the solutions and what we are doing about them, about targets, about support for the NHS, and about the whole issue of cleanliness, but I must start by asking why the Opposition have chosen so systematically to attack the NHS and to politicise the issue so consistently.
	Last week, when the Office for National Statistics announced the new figures about MRSA on death certificates, it took the Leader of the Opposition only a couple of hours to hold a party political press conference attacking the NHS. In that press conference he had the opportunity to tell the country that while he was in the Cabinet, between 1993 and 1997, the percentage of Staphylococcus aureus isolates that were methicillin resistant, that is MRSA, increased from 5 per cent. to 30 per cent., and it has only now settled at just over 40 per cent. He also had the opportunity on that occasion of saying what he thought about the comment from Geraldine Cunningham of the Royal College of Nursing—whose comments have already been referred to—criticising the Leader of the Opposition's soundbite, saying:
	"It sounds great, but how do you translate it? It is much more complex than just closing a ward. Actually, there are always patients in wards. If you moved them you would spread the infection."

Melanie Johnson: The truth of the matter is that they do it to try to get into government so that they can remove £2 billion to prop up those choosing private health care at the expense of the vast majority of patients using the NHS.

Ivan Henderson: My hon. Friend mentions openness. Conservative Members have cited what people in the NHS said, but does she remember that, in the old days, when the Tories were in control, they gagged people and prevented them from revealing problems? Whistleblowers were disciplined for speaking out. Is not it a good thing that they can say what they think under the Government?

Melanie Johnson: My hon. Friend is so right. Of course, the Opposition complain if any operation is cancelled for whatever reason. They are trying, as usual, to have their cake and eat it.
	Our plans to reduce infection rates were set out in "Winning ways", which was published in December 2003, before any of the work that we have done, and that is now being used, albeit it did not mention MRSA in a single case. "Towards cleaner hospitals and lower rates of infection" was published last July. We are actively implementing those programmes and building on the work already under way.

Melanie Johnson: That has nothing to do with whether I give way.
	Hand hygiene is an important part of inspection control. Last September we launched what we believe to be the first ever national hand hygiene campaign. The "clean your hands" campaign was based on a thorough, successful pilot study undertaken by the National Patient Safety Agency. That evidence-based campaign is tackling what has been an intractable problem for health care systems worldwide, and its impact on infection rates will be evaluated.
	We are also taking a proactive approach to research in that area. We hosted a science summit in December and issued a call for proposals on health care-associated infections in February.

Paul Burstow: Hospital infections such as MRSA are not new—they were not conjured into existence in 1997. No matter how convenient that idea might be for the narrative of the Conservatives' general election campaign, it simply is not the case. The prevention, control and containment of superbugs has been a long-standing issue for the NHS and other health care organisations, both in this country and overseas. What is new is that, since the National Audit Office report of 2000, there has been a gradual and growing realisation of the scale of the challenge posed by superbugs, of the £1 billion cost of dealing with the consequences of infection that the report identified and of the annual toll of 5,000 preventable deaths.
	First and foremost, the National Audit Office's message to the Government and the national health service in 2000 was, "Get a grip." Better management and clinical information were key to having an impact on the problem. To be fair, the Government instituted a system of mandatory reporting of MRSA bloodstream infection rates in 2001. Until that point, there was no clear measure of the scale of the problem. In 18 years in power, the Conservatives were content to rely on a voluntary reporting system that under-reported the problem—dramatically in parts of the country, but significantly across the country. That allowed MRSA rates and those for other superbugs to get out of control.
	I must say to those on the Opposition Front Bench that it is not a sufficient argument to say that the Conservatives in government were not to blame because Labour in opposition did not ask the questions. That is an inexcusable rationale for saying that the Conservatives are not to blame. Indeed, Conservative Government policy on MRSA fell into three parts: say nothing about MRSA, learn nothing about MRSA, do nothing about MRSA. Nothing new there then.
	Mandatory reporting helps only if it is smart mandatory reporting—if it helps organisations and clinicians to learn and change the way they work—but the system introduced back in 2001 fails that test. Collecting hospital MRSA rates might help headline writers to scare patients, but it fails to give front-line staff and management the information they need to fight infection.
	According to the most recent NAO survey of infection control teams, when asked about the practical impact of collection of hospital MRSA rates, 27 per cent. of teams said it had no obvious effect. That is hardly a ringing endorsement from the experts on the ground.
	In 2000, the NAO recommended that specialty level surveillance of hospital-acquired infections should be introduced. In the follow-up report last July, it said that
	"there is still a lack of robust information on the majority of infections at both the local and national level. As a result it is still not possible to say whether there has been any tangible measurable progress."
	It went on to say that information available from trusts suggested that the improvement had been small. Why? The NAO argued:
	"The lack of ownership of surveillance data by clinicians is likely to be one of the main reasons."
	More worrying still was the NAO finding that one in five infection control teams were not carrying out any surveillance activity other than mandatory MRSA bloodstream surveillance. Failure to set in place mandatory specialty-specific surveillance of infections has hamstrung the efforts of front-line infection control staff and let patients down.
	Patients should have access to reliable and comparable information on infection rates, not just in the NHS, but in the private sector. For patients, doctors and nurses, a critical element in the quality control feedback loop is missing as a result of what the Government have so far failed to do. Putting it in place should be a priority.
	The motion refers to the 955 deaths attributed to MRSA in 2003. That figure is based on data from death certificates, but it is clear that that is just the tip of the iceberg. In fact, no one knows precisely how many people die as a consequence of MRSA. The only way to get a true picture of the extent to which MRSA contributes to deaths in hospitals requires, according tothe national statistician, Len Cook, special epidemiological research. It is time that more research in that area was commissioned. I hope that the Minister gives us some idea of whether such research will be carried out to achieve a proper fix on the number of deaths from MRSA and other hospital-acquired infections.
	In opening the debate, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) rightly said that front-line staff should have the authority to close wards to control infections, but that should be done by front-line staff with expertise working in collaboration with ward staff—not only matrons, but infection control teams. I agree with Beverly Malone, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, who said recently:
	"The truth is matrons need to work in collaboration with other health professionals and managers to ensure the system works best for patients."
	There should be no question of political targets getting in the way of such critical clinical judgment calls.
	The leader of the Conservative party recently called for the return of matron, but why did successive Conservative Health Ministers fail to bring back matron between 1979 and 1997? How was the authority of front-line nursing staff over cleaning, hygiene and housekeeping undermined in the first place? I believe that the pressure to hit waiting time targets has made matters worse. As the NAO report showed, waiting time targets conflict with the prevention and control of infection.
	I do not believe that targets can ever capture the complexity of delivering high-quality health care in this country. Targets inevitably miss the point. Last November, Dr. Andrew Bamji, a senior doctor at Queen Mary's Sidcup trust, said that pressure to meet A and E waiting targets was undermining measures to tackle hospital infections. While Dr. Bamji was on holiday, two patients were admitted to his rehabilitation unit without being screened for MRSA, despite the protests of senior nurses. One of the patients later turned out to be infected with MRSA. Because of the target, a unit that had maintained a more or less MRSA-free record for more than two years became infected.
	In December last year Annette Jeanes, lead nurse in infection control at Lewisham hospital—mentioned by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd)—said of the four-hour wait target in A and E
	"You have people waiting in A and E and you physically do not have the beds to put them in. When a bed becomes available, there is not time to wash the beds and allow them to dry."
	Preventing, controlling and containing hospital infections should never come second to political targets.
	The rise of the hospital superbugs may have been fuelled by the Government's obsession with targets, but it did not start with that. Day-to-day control of everything that goes on in a hospital ward was first shattered back in the 1980s when a Conservative Government ordered hospitals to contract out their cleaning. Price and price alone became king—quality of service certainly did not. That generated the fragmentation of responsibility on the ward from which we undoubtedly still suffer today.
	In 2000, the Department of Health issued a circular setting out a programme of action for the NHS on management and control of hospital infection. There has been no national audit of compliance with that circular and Health Ministers have made it clear that the Government have no plans to undertake such an audit. When "Winning Ways" was published in December 2003, the chief medical officer gave one of the reasons why an audit had not yet been conducted. He said:
	"Despite the extent of the guidance issued to the NHS, such data as are available show that the degree of improvement has been small."
	Ensuring compliance with guidance should be a priority.
	There is no single quick-fix solution to the problem of hospital infections, but it is clear that concerted efforts involving, for instance, screening, hand washing and isolation can reduce the spread of superbugs. Good ventilation systems in wards, theatres and isolation rooms are vital to the combating of infectious diseases. According to the NAO, however, only one in three infection control teams felt that their hospital had appropriate isolation facilities.
	The Department's 2000 circular required trusts to undertake risk assessments to determine appropriate provision of isolation facilities in each trust, but according to the NAO's report last year more than 70 trusts still had not done so. Of those who had, just 25 had obtained the necessary isolation facilities. There is no timetable for action on the results of risk assessment and there appears to be no sense of urgency either at the top, in the Department, or on the ground in NHS trusts.
	It is a scandal that Ministers do not know how many isolation rooms there are in the NHS. How can the Government's contingency planning to tackle the threat of flu and other pandemics be acceptable and ring true if we do not have such basic information? There should be an urgent audit of current provision and future plans for isolation rooms.
	If infection control is to make a difference, everyone who works in health and care must take it seriously. It is not just a problem in hospitals—it is a problem in other care settings as well. The role of infection control nurses and doctors in leading the cultural change is crucial. It must be cause for concern that, four years after the NAO published its first report on hospital-acquired infections, its follow-up report concluded that the budgets of one in four infection control teams had been cut—not increased, but cut. How on earth can they be expected to do their job?
	Cutting infection is not rocket science. It is about relearning some of the lessons that Florence Nightingale taught more than 100 years ago. Fighting infection is a task for everyone who works in the NHS. What is needed may not be search and destroy, but it is certainly a zero-tolerance approach to infections in our hospitals.
	The Liberal Democrats will vote for the motion, because it sets out the case for urgent action to fight infection. We will not support the Government's amendment, because it is far too long-winded and self-congratulatory. We do not need congratulations tonight. We need definitive action to deal with the problems of superbugs in our hospitals and to ensure that people do not become sicker when they went into hospital to be cured.

John Hayes: I have only just started. All right, I will give way, because I am such a nice chap.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 281.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):
	—
	The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 156.

Bob Russell: I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), who has responsibility for community care—he is a Minister for whom I have a lot of respect—but I believe that he is not the appropriate Minister to respond to the debate. His presence confirms the muddled situation in respect of mechanised wheelchairs and the urgent need for the Government to introduce joined-up thinking on a matter of considerable and growing concern as to who should have responsibility.
	While it is appropriate for the Department of Health to have an interest, the Department for Transport perhaps should be the lead Department. Indeed, that Department is engaged in a consultation exercise on this very subject.
	Several constituents have contacted me to express concern as to the general safety not only of those who use mechanised wheelchairs, but of others who come into contact—literally in some instances—with such vehicles on the pavement or elsewhere. There are also concerns over insurance, maintenance of the vehicles and the worrying fact that users are not required to demonstrate that they are competent to drive them. This is a very serious issue, and there have been numerous accidents, including fatalities.
	I am most grateful to Mr. Richard Boyd, chief executive of the Essex Disabled People's Association, who has given me considerable background information for the case I am putting this evening. Mr. Boyd is a former chairman of the Essex police authority and a former council leader. He is also a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport. His record of public service, coupled with his current post, makes him a formidable champion for those with disabilities—that involves the need to improve matters in all respects with regard to mechanised wheelchairs and their users.
	I would also like to place on record my appreciation of Colchester Shopmobility, which provides a wonderful service for those with disabilities who wish to come to the town centre and who use a range of mechanised wheelchairs. Colchester Shopmobility is an example of best practice that many other towns would do well to emulate. It is regrettable, therefore, that the borough council not only cut the funding in recent years, but has now drawn up plans to demolish Shopmobility's headquarters without as yet having found an equally suitable location and facility.
	I have referred to the Department for Transport consultation, which ran from 10 November to 14 January. An outcome is awaited. It is regrettable, however, that the consultation was so short and that it embraced Christmas and new year, which made it very difficult for the voluntary sector to give this important matter the detailed consideration it deserves.
	Pavement and road scooters are, and have been, a boon for elderly, frail, chronically sick and disabled people. The use of these vehicles has grown rapidly, especially in the past 10 years. Clearly, their purpose is to empower individuals and to open up the mainstream physical environment. Accordingly, they and their users interact with the wider public, be they pedestrians on the footway or road vehicle users on the highway.
	It is self-evident that the scooters and their users are more vulnerable than other road users. Conversely, they present a potential danger to pedestrians. The legal and regulatory regime for scooters—or invalid carriages, as they are quaintly described in law—is at best unclear and at worst a muddle. There appear to be no accurate statistics on how many scooters are in use. The sale ofthese products is effectively uncontrolled and unmeasured. No benefit is gained from a heavy-handed regulatory system, but I believe that, given a partnership with the voluntary sector, an improvement in—and clarity about—support for users and purchasers can be achieved.
	Who in Government has a stake in good governance for the safe use and supply of scooters? I have sought advice from colleagues in the voluntary sector. It appears that there are five main players, each convinced that someone else has a larger role to play. The Department of Health, along with its Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, has a remit: it appears that scooters are medical devices. The Department for Transport also admits to an involvement, saying that "invalid carriages" are products that provide mobility for older and disabled people. It has focused on highway safety. In November 2004 it commissioned research on scooters for disabled people, as well as two-wheeled petrol or electrically powered scooters, off-road scooters and powered buggies. The collective term that I am using tonight is "mechanised wheelchairs".
	The Department for Work and Pensions, through the office of the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), who is the Minister with responsibility for disabled people, admits to an interest as well. One would assume its focus to be on disabled people and the statutory, commercial and voluntary sectors that serve and support scooter users.
	There is a fourth category: local authorities, which, through their trading standards function, must have a duty to enforce—and an interest in enforcing—safety legislation for new or second-hand wheelchairs. And the police must have an interest, if only in dealing with inappropriate use or conflict between scooter users and other footway or road users. They were clearly involved in the investigation of a fatality last year, in which a scooter user in Essex was killed.
	All those arms of authority admit to some responsibility, but it appears that at the end of each arm is a hand, with a finger that points to the next in line as being the main player. Three gaps, addressed by none of them, cause me concern. First, there is user safety, which encompasses operating skills and product suitability assessment, with regular reassessment of both. Wheelchairs must be fit for the purpose: machine must be matched to user. Secondly, there is mandatory public liability insurance to protect the user and the wider public from the repercussions of accident or damage. Thirdly, there is product safety, which includes a regime for routine maintenance and safety checks. That protects the user from poorly adjusted or poorly maintained vehicles, but also deals with the unscrupulous seller of second-hand equipment.
	The authorities need to get a grip, join up their thinking and not dilute their concentration by focusing entirely on the "highways use" of a wide range of powered and unpowered wheelchairs, scooters, buggies or off-road machines. As a mechanical product, a pavement or road scooter has an anticipated life span of between 10 and 20 years. Given the age and physical, sensory or cognitive condition of most users, it can be assumed that such products may have up to five users during their operation life span. The machines outlive the users. Substantial anecdotal evidence from the voluntary sector suggests that soon—if it has not already happened—more scooters and wheelchairs will be sold or handled on the second-hand market than are sold as new.
	The voluntary sector, often in partnership with the local authorities, is involved in Shopmobility schemes—there is one in Colchester—disability resource centres, centres for independent living and disability advice. Many major supermarkets and shopping mall operators lend or hire footway scooters to their clientele. The second-hand market can be observed at boot sales, in the "for sale" columns in the local press and at retail outlets in most towns. Specialist distributors are often based at factory sites close to other out-of-town retail outlets. Those pools of activity form a wide reservoir of knowledge and experience of footway and road scooter use.
	Who is actually looking at the situation? Who is plumbing that reservoir of expertise? Surely not just the Department for Transport, through its transport and travel specialist contractor. Most wheelchair users use the class 2 footway types of scooter, and should not go on to the highway. Why was the voluntary sector not instructed to act as the lead research focus? There are many examples of high-quality research undertaken by the sector, in which front-line information has been obtained rapidly. Why did the Department for Transport pay a commercial organisation, which has to get the real-life data from the voluntary sector anyway? Was not consideration given to the possibility that the same amount, or even less, paid directly to the voluntary sector would encourage development of that sector?
	When mechanised wheelchairs first came on to the market in a big way in the 1980s, sales were mainly through specialist dealerships. Mr. Boyd told me:
	"Twenty years ago scooters would be 'matched' to the needs of the user, either by occupational therapists employed by social services, or health providers. Users would receive instruction on driving and manoeuvring in or near pedestrian or vehicular traffic."
	Such support is not available from many of the outlets that today sell mechanised wheelchairs, nor from the rapidly expanding and unregulated second-hand market. Let us consider the not untypical case of the well-intentioned person buying a second-hand or new scooter for a needy relative. Currently in Essex, according to Mr Boyd, there is a waiting time of between 11 and 21 weeks for advice from social care. He told me:
	"Usually, trying to get something quickly and as cheaply as possible, the product is second-hand. No handbook, no operating instructions, no service history, and probably the most rudimentary driving instructions. How can issues such as manual dexterity for sensitive speed controls, eye-sight and hearing be objectively assessed by the concerned relative?"
	Although my debate is about mechanised wheelchairs, Members might wish to know that the Department for Transport sub-divides "invalid carriages" into three classes. Class 1 consists of unpowered wheelchairs, self-propelled or pushed by a third party. Class 2 consists of powered, generally small vehicles that are for indoor or outdoor use, such as scooters used on the footway. They have three or four wheels, their travel distance is limited and they should not be driven at above 4 mph. Class 3 consists of powered wheelchairs or scooters, for use outdoors on footways and roads. They have a road speed of 8 mph, but should not be driven above 4 mph on footways.
	I am told that currently, more than 60 models of class-2 scooters and wheelchairs, and 30 of class 3, are available on the market. The price of a new class-2 vehicle varies between £1,500 and £2,500; that of a class-3 vehicle varies between £2,000 and £4,000. A class-3 road scooter can weigh as much as 2 cwt. At a speed of 4 mph—let alone of an illegal 8 mph—a 15-stone user hitting a child or elderly pedestrian would cause injury or even kill them. I ask the Minister to say whether a person driving a mechanised wheelchair on the road needs to have a driving licence. Does the vehicle have to be registered and display a number plate, and is third-party insurance a legal requirement?
	The British Healthcare Trades Association brochure entitled "Get Wise: Highway Code for Electric Scooter and Wheelchair Users"—I must admit that I do not have that publication by my bedside—could form the basis of a minimum requirement of competence that anyone wishing to drive a mechanised wheelchair would need. Mr. Boyd tells me:
	"The advice from Trading Standards in Essex has been consistent, that they share the concerns about safety, insurance and suitability of product to user, but feel that these issues have to be addressed by new legislation."
	I hope that this evening, I have conveyed sufficient concern to cause the Government to give serious consideration to the action that needs to be taken to ensure that safety is of the utmost importance to those who use mechanised wheelchairs, and to others who could be harmed by users who are not competent to operate such vehicles. I further urge the Government to engage the voluntary sector, in order to provide the expertise that experienced organisations such as the Essex Disabled People's Association and Colchester Shopmobility can offer.